Posted by Andy Dingley on 07/30/05 16:42

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:43:15 +0100, SpaceGirl
<NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:

>> - Dreamweaver is sold to those who think that visual design interfaces
>> are the way to work.
>
>And they aren't?

In 2005, the Web is not a visual medium.

Now the perception of "the web" is obviously visual, but this is a
second-hand perception of it. You can't see the Web, the HTML and HTTP
that is the underlying commonality between site and browser, and more
importantly this HTML can't directly control what your users see. "The
web" and the Web are separated by the user's browsing device. One of
today's most interesting issues is the widespread range of these devices
and their different capabilities.

For today's web user-space, the important issue isn't "what it looks
like" - as this can only ever be a single snapshot of one particular
rendering for one user. The real issue is how robust the block of code
is, so that when it arrives on this variety of user devices it gives a
good range of approximations to our idealised visual look.

We know that controlling the direct visual appearance of the web is a
non-starter. We tried in recent years, with pixel-sized positioning and
with Flash. On the whole it just doesn't work. Adapting between 800 and
1200 wide screens is one thing, particularly when you're a high-res
image viewer, but try extending this to a train-times site viewable from
office desktop or mobile phone - the range of device capabilities is
simply too broad to ever have an _appropriate_ visual design that suits
all of them.

Secondly the ideal visual design may vary between users. Do I want as
much information on my screen as possible, or do I wish to enlarge the
text so that I can read it ? Does that eye-catching button ad make me
want to buy, or make me want to scream?

"Visual design" is a compromise. It's a compromise between forcing
exact pixel compliance onto us and accepting that a single
pixel-compliant view isn't even appropriate, let alone achievable. It's
just not a good thing in usable design to take the view "You must view
this page exactly as my image said you would", even if it were
achievable. In a world where pixel compliance is a fools' errand anyway,
the best results (as happiest users over all their devices) are achieved
by thinking of the code output and its _potential_ renderings as the
designer's target, rather than this single snapshot in one situation.

Doing web design is too often done by taking a Photoshop dump of one
screen image, then replicating in HTML. This is like choosing a pet by
looking in a taxidermist's window and seeing what they look like when
stuffed, immobile and squashed flat.


>Are fab web sites about great code, or are they about
>user experience?

Any time beyond a second visit, they're about content.

The "web site" is dead (and good riddance). There's nothing cool about
the web any more, there's no novelty to it. You can't have a viable site
whose biggest selling point is the fact that "it's a site". It has to
_do_ something, tell you something, sell you something. Visiting web
sites "because they're cool" is like going to shopping malls to look at
the architecture.

Shopping malls are a good analogy. You visit a mall to buy something.
Your teenage daughters might visit it to hang out with their friends.
You'll choose one over another because the floors are cleaner, or the
lighting brighter, or the parking is easier, but fundamentally it's
about shopping. You might drink coffee there too and you might choose
one over another for a whole range of reasons, but without there being
some shopping to be had, then you won't bother going at all.


>Visual environments lead to more open ended "just try that out" design?

And for much the same reasons, 1999s growth in personal grooming
products led to an unfortunate experimentation in Nathan Barley beards
and the Hoxton Fin.

[Back to original message]